RANJIT GHOSH Vs. HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff against an order dated the 22nd March, 1969 passed by Sri A. N. Banerjee, Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 821 of 1968, rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and vacating the interim order for the same.

(2.) The facts leading on to the appeal can be put in a short compass. The plaintiff who was, at the material time, employed as the Sales Manager, Hindushthan Steel Limited at its Calcutta Office, instituted a suit for a declaration that the order dated the 2nd November, 1968, issued by the defendant No. 1, Hindushthan Steel Limited over the signature of Mr. A. E. Antony for the Chief Personnel and Manpower, transferring the plaintiff from Calcutta to the post Joint chief (Administration) at Ranchi is illegal, mala fide and without authority of the law and also for a permanent injunction restraining the said defendant and three others from giving effect to the said order of transfer and transferring the said plaintiff from Calcutta to Ranchi. An application praying for a temporary injunction was filed on the 20th December, 1968 and on the 21st December, 1968 a Rule was issued by the court calling upon the defendant to show cause. An order for interim injunction was also passed, restraining the defendants from giving effect to the purported order of transfer in question and from proceeding any further in the matter till the disposal of the Rule of until further orders. The defendants put in appearance and filed objections to the temporary injunction. Another application was also filed by the plaintiff alleging that in violation of the order of ad interim injunction the defendants had disconnected his telephone and were not allowing him to join his post at Calcutta. The learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, by his order dated the 22nd March, 1969 rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff and vacated the interim order granted in his favour and further rejected the petitioner filed by the plaintiff for proceeding against the defendants for the violation of the order of interim injunction. This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Appeal.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kumar Dutt, Advocate (with Messrs. Sushil Kumar Biswas and Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, Advocates) appearing in support of the Appeal, on behalf of the appellant, made a threefold submission. The first contention of Mr. Dutt is that the purported order of transfer is but a mere intimation to the plaintiff to the effect that a proper order would be made subsequently and is not a valid order of tranfer passed by a competent authority. Mr. Dutt referred in this context to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case between the Hindustan Brown Boveri, Ltd, v. Their Workmen, (1968) 1 Lab LJ 571 (SC) wherein Mr. Justice J. M. Shelat delivering the judgment held, in the facts of that case, that the power to pass an order of dismissal and of the lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal are both vested in the company and not in any of its other authorities and that in the absence of a delegation it is the company and not the Works Manager who can exercise the power of punishment under the standing orders 23 and 27. Mr. Dutt next contended that the order impugned is vindictive and mala fide and as such is not maintainable in law. The third and last submission of Mr. Dutt is that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in disposing of the application for temporary injunction by relying on materials disclosed in a supplementary affidavit by the defendant after the arguments were over on the 15th March, 1969 has been in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Several decisions were cited by him on the aforesaid points.